Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.14697/jkase.2015.35.3.0353

Impact of Peer Assessment Activities on High School Student's Argumentation in Argument-Based Inquiry  

Lee, Seonwoo (Pusan National University)
Bak, Deokchan (Pusan National University)
Nam, Jeonghee (Pusan National University)
Publication Information
Journal of The Korean Association For Science Education / v.35, no.3, 2015 , pp. 353-361 More about this Journal
Abstract
This study focused on the use of peer assessment activities to investigate its the impact on students' argumentation skills in argument-based inquiry. The participants of the study were 106 10th grade students (four classes). Two classes were assigned to the experimental group, and the other two classes were assigned to the comparative group. The experimental group was taught argument-based inquiry through the application of peer assessment activities. The comparative group was taught argument-based inquiry without peer assessments. At the claim and evidence stage, students were asked to evaluate whether peers' claims fit with the evidence and whether peers' explanation of the evidences validity was sufficient. The quality of argumentation used in the students' writing was different in each group. According to the analysis of the summary writing test, the results showed that the experimental group had a significantly higher mean score than the comparative group in argumentation components, including evidence and warrant/backing. In addition, the experimental group used better multimodal representation including explanation of evidence than the comparative group. The findings showed that argument-based inquiry applying peer assessment activities had an effect on the argumentation skills in students' writing.
Keywords
peer assessment; argumentation; argument-based inquiry;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 3  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Alexopoulou, E., & Driver, R. (1996). Small-Group Discussion in Physics : Peer Interaction Modes in Pairs and Fours. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(10), 1099-1114.   DOI
2 American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
3 Berland, L., & Lee, V. (2012). In pursuit of consensus: Disagreement and legitimization during small-group argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 34(12), 1857-1882.   DOI
4 Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (2007). Rethinking assessment in higher education. London: Kogan Page.
5 Cho, H., & Nam, J. (2014). The Impact of the Argument-based Modeling Strategy using Scientific Writing implemented in Middle School Science. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 34(6), 583-592.   DOI   ScienceOn
6 Clark, D., & Sampson, V. (2008). Assessment of the ways students generate arguments in science education: Current perspectives and recommendations for future directions. Science Education, 92(3), 447-472.   DOI   ScienceOn
7 Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-313.   DOI
8 Duschl, R., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72.   DOI
9 Duschl, R., Schweingruber, H., & Shouse, A. (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
10 Erduran, S., & Jimenez-Aleixandre, M. (2007). Argumentation in science education: an overview. Argumentation in Science Education, 35, 3-27.   DOI
11 Fulwiler, B. (2008). Writing in science: How to scaffold instruction to support learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
12 Jang, K., Nam, J., & Choi, A. (2012). The Effects of Argument-Based Inquiry Using the Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) Approach on Argument Structure in Students' Writing. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 32(7), 1099-1108.   DOI
13 Hand, B., Choi, A., Greenbowe, T., Schroeder, J., & Bennett, W. (2008). Examining the impact of student use of multiple-mode representations in constructing science arguments. annual international conference of National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Baltimore, MD.
14 Hand, B., Hohenshell, L., & Prain, V. (2007). Examining the effect of multiple writing tasks on Year 10 biology students' understandings of cell and molecular biology concepts. Instructional Science, 35, 343 -373.   DOI
15 Hsi, S., & Hoadley, C. (1997). Productive Discussion in Science: Gender Equity Through Electronic Discourse. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 6(1), 23-36.   DOI   ScienceOn
16 Jimenez-Aleixandre, M., Rodriguez, M., & Duschl, R. (2000). "Doing the lesson" or "doing science": Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757-792.   DOI
17 Kelly, G., & Chen, C. (1999). The sound of music: Constructing science as a sociocultural practice through oral and written discourse. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(8), 883-915.   DOI
18 Kelly, G., & Takao, A. (2002). Epistemic levels in argument: an analysis of university oceanography students' use of evidence in writing. Science Education, 86(3), 314-342.   DOI   ScienceOn
19 Kelly, G., Regev, J., & Prothero, W. (2007). Analysis of lines of reasoning in written argumentation. Argumentation in science education, 35, 137-157.   DOI
20 Keys, C., Hand, B., Prian, V., & Collins, S. (1999). Using the Science Writing Heuristic as a Tool for Learning from Laboratory Investigations in Secondary Science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(10), 1065-1084.   DOI
21 Kiuhara, S., Graham, S., & Hweken, L. (2009). Teaching writing to high school students: A national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 136-160.   DOI   ScienceOn
22 Kollar, I. & Fischer F. (2012). Peer assessment as collaborative learning: a cognitive perspective. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 344-348.   DOI
23 Kuhn, L., & Reiser, B. (2006). Structuring activities to foster argumentative discourse. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
24 Kulatunga, U., Moog, R., & Lewis, J. (2013). Argumentation and Participation Patterns in General Chemistry Peer-Led Sessions. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(10), 1207-1231.   DOI   ScienceOn
25 Kwon, J., & Nam, J. (2013). A Study on the Change of the Beginning Science Teachers' Beliefs About a Lesson and Teaching Practice in Argument-Based Inquiry Using Science Writing. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 33(7), 1329-1342.   DOI   ScienceOn
26 Larson, A., Britt, M., & Kurby, C. (2009). Improving students' evaluation of informal arguments. Journal of Experimental Education, 77(4), 339-366.   DOI
27 Li, L., Liu, X., & Steckelberg, A. (2010). Assessor or assessee: How student learning improves by giving and receiving peer feedback. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(3), 525-536.   DOI   ScienceOn
28 Liu, E., Lin, S., Chiu, C., & Yuan, S. (2001). Web-based peer review: The learner as both adapter and reviewer. IEEE Transactions on Education, 44(3), 246-251.   DOI   ScienceOn
29 Nam, J., Kwak, K., Jang, K., & Hand, B. (2008). The implementation of argumentation using Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) in Middle School Science. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 28(8), 922-936.
30 Nam, J., Koh, M., Bak, D., Lim, J., Lee, D. & Choi, A. (2011). The Effects of Argumentation-based General Chemistry Laboratory on Preservice Science Teachers' Understanding of Chemistry Concepts and Writing. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 31(8), 1077-1091.
31 Nam, J., Lee, D., & Cho, H. (2011). The Impact of Argumentation-based General Chemistry Laboratory Programs on Multimodal Representation and Embeddedness in University Students' Science Writing. Journal of the Korean Association for Science Education, 31(6), 931-941.
32 National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
33 National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
34 National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
35 National Research Council. (2013). The next generation science standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
36 Osborne, J. (2002). Science without literacy:Aship without a sail? Cambridge Journal of Education, 32, 203-215.   DOI
37 Osborne, J., & Dillon, J. (2008). Science education in Europe. London: Nuffield Foundation.
38 Poock, J., Burke, K., Greenbowe, T., & Hand, B. (2007). Using the science writing heuristic in the general chemistry laboratory to improve students academic performance. Journal of Chemical Education, 84, 1371-1378.   DOI   ScienceOn
39 Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simmon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 41(10), 994-1020.   DOI   ScienceOn
40 Phillips, L., & Norris, S. (1999). Interpreting popular reports of science: What happens when the readers' world meets the world on paper?. International Journal of Science Education, 21(3), 317-327.   DOI
41 Prain, V., & Hand, B. (1996). Writing for learning in secondary science: Rethinking practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(3), 179-201.
42 Purchase, H. (2000). Learning about interface design through peer assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(4), 341-352.
43 Rust, C., Price, M., & O'Donovan, B. (2003). Improving students' learning by developing their understanding of assessment criteria and processes. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(2), 147-164.   DOI
44 Sampson, V., Enderle, P., Grooms, J., & Witte, S. (2013). Writing to Learn by Learning to Write During the School Science Laboratory: Helping Middle and High School Students Develop Argumentative Writing Skills as They Learn Core Ideas. Science Education, 97(5), 643-670.   DOI   ScienceOn
45 Sandoval, W., & Reiser, B. (2004). Explanation driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(3), 345-372.   DOI   ScienceOn
46 Smyth, K. (2004). The benefits of students learning about critical evaluation rather than being summatively judged. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(3), 369-378.
47 Xiao, Y., & Lucking, R. (2008). The impact of two types of peer assessment on students' performance and satisfaction within a Wiki environment. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(3-4), 186-193.   DOI   ScienceOn
48 Spiller, D. (2009). Assessment matters: Self assessment and peer assessment. New Zealand: University of Waikato.
49 Tavares, M., Jimenez-Aleixandre, M., & Mortimer, E. (2010). Articulation of conceptual knowledge and argumentation practices by high school students in evolution problems. Science & Education, 19(6-8), 573-598.   DOI   ScienceOn
50 Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
51 Yore, L., Bisanz, G., & Hand, B. (2003). Examining the literacy component of science literacy: 25 years of language arts and science research. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 689-725.   DOI